What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today

What?!  Yeah FIDE is corrupt but I don't think anyone's throwing matches to him he's just simply the best.  Fischer said the Karpov-Kasparov match was rigged and I don't believe him. 

Troll or kook? I can't decide.

Paul Morphy when playing blindfold didn't blunder a piece even when he was playing against five masters simultaneous: a 2700 player did a one move blunder in rated game blindfold. You better believe there is a rating inflation,(New In Chess) Carlsen's losing in a simple rook and pawn endgame, the Russian GM said , any Russian school boy would of drawn that game, to be fair this was before Carlsen became world champion. Without the computer programs and trainers, most rating would be at 2600 Elo and some 2700 Elo.

Magikstone wrote:

I'm sure Magnus Carlsen is a great player, but I'm also pretty sure that players are told to lose to him to make him seem invincible.  I think what FIDE wants is to paint Magnus Carlsen as way above his rivals, and keep that image for the next 15 years.  Politics has interferred with chess.  We all know Anand was told to lose the match against Magnus.  

Seriously, I'd like to see proof.

My bosses have instructed me to post like an idiot. See you at work.

has to be troll

In the words of Ben Finegold about Morphys rating: "whatever magnus is plus 10"

Everyone is talking about Lasker but the player should Capablanca. Lasker should be call the great ducker, ducking all worthy challengers, especially Rubinstein. Restricting Schlechter to ten games and forcing him to win by two points, this is the great ducker Lasker who held the world champion for twenty-seven years. Refusing to playing Capablanca in 1911 and ducking until the chess world demanded a match and like a coward he try to give the title to Capablanca, but Capablanca refuse the title and prefer to earn it through winning it through a match. Capablanca a true champion. Capablanca wins the match with four wins , zero lost and ten draws and Lasker could not win not one game. Even the old Steinitz score five wins in his first match against Lasker in 1894. Capablanca bitch slap Lasker and send him crying back to the old world in shame. Any player who want to be world champion the prerequisite is to study Capablanca's games; Alekhine undertsood this and won the championship against Capablanca. Karpov study Capablanca and became world champion and now Carlsen did his study of Capablanca's games and now he is our current champion. So Capablanca bring him to current time, he would dominate the chess world not Carlsen. Raw talent will always win and that is Capablanca. He dominated the chess world and everyone fear him. Let us see if Carlsen against a young opponent will win a match this year?

Yuree, do you know something about Capa that nobody else does?

This is about players who were active in the 19th Century compared to those in the 21st Century.

Didn't Capablanca botch a book win against Menchik, who in turn botched her draw?  Capablanca was a great endgame player overall of course but I can't see Carlsen making such a mistake. 

Please don't say Lasker here , I cant stand coffehouse players !  

@Smyslov, true Capablanca is not in 19th century but everyone seem to think Lasker will be one top players. I can't really say study Morphy's games and you be will world champion, maybe if a player 19th century master. Hmmm maybe I off subject here. I can't say for certainty,but Steinitz will be a good start to study to go to GM. Steinitz and Chigorin if they were born present time will probably be GM level, back on topic. :)

NM Reb wrote: Please don't say Lasker here , I cant stand coffehouse players !

Interesting, Rubinstein said the same thing about Lasker. He (Lasker) plays coffee house opening.

There are plenty of threads devoted to Capa. This thread will get seriously derailed (as if that never happens here) with discussions of Capa.

Yureesystem will probably take me to task for this, but Lasker might fare better against modern GMs than Capa, though I give Capa the edge over Lasker for raw talent. The reason I say this is stylistic. Above all, Lasker was adaptable and flexible and seemed comfortable with any type of position. He could attack, or defend, or play smooth methodical chess a la Tarrasch, or he could play crazy chess in unbalanced positions with weird pawn structures, etc. I think Lasker might adapt better to modern chess where the emphasis is on dynamic play and counterplay. Capa was a phenominal technician and his play had less blunders than that of anyone in history. But against a modern GMs technique I think Capa's style would hit a brick wall. He would get many draws and some loses. Lasker would more likely get some wins as well as losses and draws. Though overall Lasker would be outclassed by a strong modern GM.

All world champs from Lasker on would be GMs today if they stepped into a time vortex and found themselves at a FIDE event.

Alekhine (the non drunk version) is probably the first of the early champs that could be super GM material.  The ones before him didn't take preparation as seriously as he did.

Unfortunately we have too many cowards in chess.  Fischer would have lost to Karpov.  And Kasparov would no longer have been in the top ten if he would have continued playing.  The only world champion that deserves a lot of credit, is Magnus  Carslen, for dominating chess in the computer era.  Not even Kasparov had what it takes to dominate in the computer era.  The beset chess player of all time is therefore Magnus Carlsen.

I guess the horse has left the barn.

Capa was clearly far beyond the level of Lasker. His crystal clear style of chess is what every young player should study. But that goes to precisely why even Capa wouldn't match up with today's GMs. Even Fischer berated Capa's endgame skills. Capa's technical skill worked so well because he was rarely faced with players who fought him on every move. Alekhine was the first to do just that, and Capa's technique deserted him. If you analysed the endgames from the Alekhine-Capa match and removed the names, you'd think the players had changed sides. Well, at least based on the hype surrounding both players. 

Capa would have had no clue how to deal with a player such as Mikhail Tal. His irrational approach to chess was completely foreign to everything Capa stood for. And today's great attacking players (Ivanchuk, Moro, Karjakin, Naka and many others) are the descendants of both Capa's and Tal's traditions.

Today's best players play at a technical level beyond even that of my hero, Smyslov, or of Fischer. Today's top players are absolutely incredible both in terms of their technical skill and their willingness to attack. But the one thing that today's players really trump their predecessors in is their ability to calculate objectively. These guys are amazing.

Agreed. Lasker and Capa relied on talent and didn't study much. AAA was able to beat Capa by combining his unique crazy brilliance with hard work and a deep study of Capa's games.

SilentKnighte5 wrote:

All world champs from Lasker on would be GMs today if they stepped into a time vortex and found themselves at a FIDE event.

Alekhine (the non drunk version) is probably the first of the early champs that could be super GM material.  The ones before him didn't take preparation as seriously as he did.

Ratings inflate ... this is an absurd argument. I don't want to waste my time with anybody so obstinate as to insist that rating inflation doesn't exist.

Players are also getting stronger. In a way, this correlates with rating inflation, and it's hard to separate the two. However, there is evidence of both.